Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Charlie Black and the 'Terror' Card

UPDATE, 10:15 a.m.: Proving that they believe they can fight and beat Republicans on the issue of terrorism, Barack Obama's campaign held a conference call this morning featuring Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 Commission. On the call, Ben-Veniste insisted that the "invasion of Iraq has become the biggest recruiting poster for terrorists around the world." He added that what appealed to him about Obama as a candidate is the "concept of restoring America's place in the world" and said that the way to win the war on terror is through a combination of "muscle and diplomacy."

ORIGINAL POST

Comments made by Charlie Black, a senior adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, regarding the political benefit of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto late last year and the potential impact on the November election of another domestic terrorist attack have thrust the debate over national security -- once again -- into the center of the presidential campaign.

In an interview with Fortune magazine, Black called the Bhutto assassination an "unfortunate event" before adding: "But [McCain's] knowledge and ability to talk about it re-emphasized that this is the guy who is ready to Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us."

As for the political implications of a future attack in America? "Certainly it would be a big advantage to [McCain]," said Black in a statement described by Fortune editor-at- large David Whitford as a moment of "startling candor."

Black, at the same event, apologized for his own comments. "I deeply regret the comments, they were inappropriate," he said.

The flap over national security and terrorism marks the second time in as many weeks we find ourselves debating the role that these issues will have in the November election.

Last week, McCain's campaign seized on comments made by Barack Obama regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists. The McCain camp alleged that the Illinois Senator did not properly understand the post-Sept. 11 world in which we live.

While we take McCain at his word that Black's comments were not reflective of how the Arizona senator views terrorism and its place in the campaign, what is quite clear is that McCain believes that the threat posed by terrorists is the fundamental issue of this election.

A few paragraphs before Black's comments in the Fortune story, McCain is asked to name the most pressing economic threat to the country's well-being.

"Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence," McCain said. "Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences."

In that answer is encapsulated McCain's entire argument to the American people this fall: The stakes are too high to take a chance on someone as unproven on the world stage as Obama.

A look at recent polling provides hard evidence that backs up McCain's laser-like focus on terrorism and national security in the early days of the general election.

In the most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, voters were asked whether they trusted McCain or Obama more on 11 different issues. McCain beat Obama by double digits on just one issue -- "the U.S. campaign against terrorism" (53 percent to 39 percent).

A new poll from Gallup/USA Today affirms the findings of the Post survey. Asked whether McCain or Obama would do a "good job" handling terrorism, 70 percent said McCain, while 49 percent said Obama.

There is also data in the Gallup survey, however, that suggests national security and terrorism are not the silver bullet that they were for Republicans in 2002 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, 2004.

The Gallup/USA Today sample group was asked whether they would be more likely to vote for "a candidate whose greatest strength is fixing the economy" or "a candidate whose greatest strength is protecting the country from terrorism."

Fifty-six percent of respondents chose a candidate who could heal the economy, while 39 percent opted for the candidate better able to keep them safe from terrorism.

It's worth noting that while Obama has focused almost exclusively on the economy since early June, it's not fair to cast the above question as test of Obama (economy) versus McCain (terrorism). McCain won't easily cede the economic ground to Obama given the importance of the issue in the minds of voters.

But, the question and answer do get at the fact that voters are more concerned right now with improving the economy than they are with the threat of terrorism. The further the country moves away from the scarring events of Sept. 11, the more the average American's consciousness moves on to other matters.

This moving on to new issues coupled with the damage done to the Republican brand over the last several years by President Bush -- and a series of congressional scandals -- complicates what four or six years ago was a winning issue for Republicans.

Democrats learned in the 2006 election, in which they regained majorities in the House and Senate, that they no longer needed to play defense on national security and terrorism. During that cycle they often took the fight to Republicans -- insisting that the policies advocated by the GOP had actually made the country less safe.

Obama has clearly learned those lessons. "Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe," said spokesman Bill Burton.

In other words: Bring it on.

The November election should tell us much about the potency of national security and terrorism as an issue for Republicans. In a political climate as bad as this one, it's clearly their best bet as an issue. But will it be enough?

So, now Charles Black is hoping for a major terrorist attack on American soil to give John McSame's campaign a "big boost". With this comment, I've got to ask will McSame go further than Bush in doing, saying, or hoping for anything that will help him win the White House. The latest Newsweek Poll showing that Obama has opened up a 16% lead over McSame must be correct for McSame to be this desperate. Here is the quote from Fortune Magazine: "We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black." See http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/index.htm or http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/mccain-adviser-apologizes-for-terrorism-remark/index.html

Reading thru the other comments, I am surprised that no one has recalled how the Bush Administration used the color code emergency alert system to gin up public anxiety about the terrorist threat in the 04 campaign.

That Black sees the terror card as a net for the GOP almost guarantees that we will see heightened security alerts, the uncovering of major plots and weapons caches and that trump card- the election eve broadcast by the ever-elusive Osama bin Laden.

We have not had a terrorist attack because they don't want to. We have no ability to stop a simple terrorists attack. That should tell us there is no war on terror, it is just a boogie man. Our own drunk drivers kill more people in one year then terrorists have killed in the last ten years. Malpractice kill 90,000 people in this country every year. We need to take a reality check.

+++++++++++
I don't know about the rest of you but in Ohio a lot of us are scared to death by Obama wanting to turn the war on terror over to the courts.

Of all people, Dick Morris said it best when he noted Obama had stated, "In previous terrorist attacks - for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated."

This is big - because that prosecution, and the ground rules for it, had more to do with our inability to avert 9/11 than any other single factor.

Because we treated the 1993 WTC bombing as simply a crime, our investigation was slow, sluggish and constrained by the need to acquire admissible evidence to convict the terrorists.

As a result, we didn't know that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for the attack until 1997 - too late for us to grab Osama when Sudan offered to send him to us in 1996. Clinton and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger turned down the offer, saying we had no grounds on which to hold him or to order his kidnapping or death.

Obama's embrace of the post-'93 approach shows a blindness to the key distinction that has kept us safe since 9/11 - the difference between prosecution and protection.

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

Just think what could be accomplished in the 'war on terrorism' with a competent person in charge?

This guy is treating it exactly the same as GWB, as their #1 permanent campaign gimmick, which is what they have been doing since 9/11. No one should be surprised that Black came right out and said it. Same old Republican party, policy, campaign plan.

I don't know about the rest of you but in Ohio a lot of us are scared to death by Obama wanting to turn the war on terror over to the courts.

Of all people, Dick Morris said it best when he noted Obama had stated, "In previous terrorist attacks - for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated."

This is big - because that prosecution, and the ground rules for it, had more to do with our inability to avert 9/11 than any other single factor.

Because we treated the 1993 WTC bombing as simply a crime, our investigation was slow, sluggish and constrained by the need to acquire admissible evidence to convict the terrorists.

As a result, we didn't know that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for the attack until 1997 - too late for us to grab Osama when Sudan offered to send him to us in 1996. Clinton and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger turned down the offer, saying we had no grounds on which to hold him or to order his kidnapping or death.

Obama's embrace of the post-'93 approach shows a blindness to the key distinction that has kept us safe since 9/11 - the difference between prosecution and protection.

The reality folks is that our present illegitimately lected president George W
has probably arranged to get Mr. mcCain on the Red Phone with Osama bin Laden and
make sure that they all can get together soon for tea and crumpets. There's no question in my mind that george has the
mental capacity to remain in contact with the bin Laden Klan, particualr as he is Osama's adopted brother. John McCain is nothing more than a Terrorists Dream Come True.

Actually I should've mentioned how much adult education is being carried out by the Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) using small words, and no facts. We want someone else to do the hard work, and since they put in the effort thinking, all we need to is agree.

So how much oil money - after being laundered through Saudi Arabia - is being given to Osama Bin Laden's charitable organizations?

As long as we focus on his terror and not his broader goals - we've taken our eyes off the ball. (again) He should be just another nut-case posting messages on the Internet, not some figure of inspiration and hope.

But once the strange words are drawn into the debate "Saudi Arabia" "Mutaween" "Madrasa" "Wahhabi", the Cheetoes entrusted fingers start pawing around for the remote control to change to Fox News where they explain things in easy-to-understand terms.

"do you think the media, including you, the NYT, would have given Obama a break the way you have given McCain? How come, you people in the media always have to justify what McCain says?"

This is what I'm wondering. I'm so sick of the McCain Stream Media.

How come no one in the media bothers to mention McCain's ILLEGAL campaign finance flip flop? Even if you claim what Obama did was a flip flop, it was legal and deserved to be held in the same light as McCain's breaking his own law.

Interesting how the Republican Party and Senator John Mccain still don't get the real message which is that what our nation needs at this time is a competent leader who can begin the task of digger our nation out from the Pit of Despair which the illegitimately elected Regime has dug
over the last eight years of it's illegitimate Reign. At least Senator Barack Obama has the guts to at least attempt to make a difference both nationally and globally. The sad reality,
however is that too many Americans still exist in that "Ignorance is Bliss" world
which the illegitimate Regime of Bush/Cheney has perpetuated over the last dismal eight years.

Charlie Black is a fool for apologizing for
speaking the truth about Senator John McCain and the potential for disaster should he be elected as our president in November. The last person our United States needs at this sad time in our history is to elect another terrorist-minded president following in the footprints of our present terrorist President George W. Bush.

CC- in all honestly we just saw what the gop estabishment was thinking. if the association card,and the liberal card didnt work, then its time to bring out the fear card!

i was reading something along the lines of this in fivethirtyeight.com. the majority opinion was that depending on the timing and who carried out the attack, it may not even help team McSame, it may even backfire on them. if there was a small al quedia style attack, it may get a few news cycles but the underlying narrative is, the gop dropped the ball on national security.

so honestly no its not going to help McCain, if anything it stopped you guys from talking about obama from taking public financing.(seriously, 2million small donors and you guys think he's cheating?)

He's using the word "debate" in a more figurative sense, to mean an exchange of campaign commercials. Absolutely, Obama welcomes an exchange of campaign commercials about national security, because that is real change.

There are new reports that the number of in depression are increasingly more than combat deaths. Assuming this is true, how can you people sit there and go on as if everything is ok? How can you people keep saying that McCain is better at "terrorism" when he is willing to let soldiers' lives go into deterioration? I am not going to have any of this! What could be more important than the health of the future of America? (in our young men & women) serving us.

I am just wondering... Suppose someone from the Obama Campaign made the gaffe that charlie Black made while giving an interview to Vanity, do you think the media, including you, the NYT, would have given Obama a break the way you have given McCain? How come, you people in the media always have to justify what McCain says? Everybody in the WAPO and NYT doesn't think or will not accept that McCain, or anyone in linked to him, can make a mistake. You always have to try to convince us that "McCain's words, statements etc were taken out of context" I am sick and tired of the media telling us that we are always taking this guy out of context!

Please try to be fair enough to us and both the candidates. It is becoz of your (NYT & WAPO) sloppy reporting, when you refused to tell us the truth about the debate preceding the Iraq war, that we got into this blunder and needless loss of life in Iraq. YOU gave Bush a PASS the way you are now giving a pass to McCain. You are not taking McCain to task, you are not asking him to explain his positions, for example, you are not asking him to say where he will get the $300 million incentive that he would reward any one who comes up with an energy-saving car! BS! what if that person or company is not American, will McCain still dish out this kind of money, to outsiders? McCain has drastically changed his position on off-shore drilling, that's ok. people can change positions, BUT why did you guys slaughter Obama on changing his position on campaign finance then? I mean, Obama's style is still public financing to me, and we don't see anything imoral about that - but for heaven's sake, I am yet to see the media outrage on McCain and off-shore, the way it was slapped on Obama!

We are not going to stand here and let you people go on with this nonesense! If you can't do your job with McCain, then I think you don't deserve our respect, and this time, we're not letting you fail America, the wy you did six years ago. Becoz by giving McCain a free pass, you are putting us into a military confrontation with IRAN. We have soldiers from Iraq in various stages of depression, how long are you willing to let this go on?

MUKASEY AND CHERTOFF: WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT RAMPANT VIGILANTISM UNDER YOUR WATCH?

THOSE WHO DARE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ARE BEING CUT OFF FROM ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

While Congress protects the companies who spy on Americans under government orders, local community vigilante squads known as "gang stalkers" or "community stalkers" are targeting harassing and terrorizing American citizens outside of the bounds of the law.

Who is supporting these groups, and why are they allowed to operate? Read the following link and sublinks:

www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/alt.abuse.recovery.html

Congress and the media are AWOL on the subject of grassroots vigilante squads who are harassing, intimidating and terrorizing American citizens outside of the law. Politics and elections are meaningless if democracy is subverted at the grassroots. Where is the national media on the subject of "GANG STALKING/COMMUNITY STALKING"?

This situation reminds me of the dust-up that occurred when Governor Rendell noted that some white people in PA wouldn't be comfortable voting for an African American presidential candidate. The Governor was not ENDORSING that view, he was merely stating what he viewed was a fact. Based on polling and the results in West Virginia and other parts of Appalachia, the Governor was probably right. Similarly, I think Charlie Black was stating what he views as a fact. He wasn't saying he hopes for a terrorist attack, he was just analyzing the political ramifications should one occur. It's really just a logical extension of saying that Republicans enjoy a statistical advantage on the issue of terrorism (they do). And because Republicans enjoy an advantage on terrorism, anything that focuses public attention on terrorism and drives people to cast their ballot on this issue (like a terrorist attack) will naturally help the Republican candidate. Again, I don't think Mr. Black was saying he hopes for a terrorist attack. It's like a Democrat saying a sagging economy hurts McCain (a Democrat can hold that view without being happy about the prospect of a recession). At bottom, I think this is a tempest in a teapot.

Bush seized incredible powers and a second term by playing to fear and intimidation of the shuddering sheep after 9/11. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the McCain camp would hope for another attack to get the Whitehouse by pandering to the fearful and ignorant.

McCain, a career Navy officer and former POW has revealed his true self in office by voting for a war that WAS about oil, wanting to stay in Iraq for the next one-hundred years or longer to protect western oil interests (read: "contributors"), helping to create a whole new generation of service-disabled veterans in the process and consistently voting against benefits and funding for them.

As a twenty-two year veteran from a military family I hold him in contempt.

Everyone knows John McCain wants another terrorist attack just like the 9/11 attacks helped George Bush become a "War president" McCain will use it to try and become president. McCain is a flip flopper you can't trust him. He will say and do anything to get elected.

With such world leaders as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and "The Little Dictator" on Iran endorsing Barack Husein Obama, no self-respecting terrorist would attack and shift the advantage to someone who actually has the guts to fight.

But, Charlie, there couldn't possibly be another terrorist attack on the US between now and the election. Dear Leader has stated -- quite clearly -- that that's why we're fighting them over there. As long as we don't leave Iraq, they can't follow us home.

This comment really puts the lie to that old right-wing canard that liberals are traitors. It's obvious that a party that views an attack on America as a political opportunity for their candidate probably does not have the safety of Americans as their number 1 priority...a view which most people would probably see as traitorous.

No, just the bogus alerts like in 2004. And fake intercepted messages that they can't tell anyone where they are coming from because of national security. It will be boogie man time again and we can all hide under our beds as Bush and Mccain protect us. Bull Sh&t.

++++++++++++++
OF COURSE the Republicans are going to arrange for a terror attack before the election. Who is foolish enough to believe otherwise? And some people will actually fall for it.

McCain Has Had At Least 134 Lobbyists Running His Campaign & Raising Money For Him

Progressive Media USA Research
PUBLISHED: May 19, 2008

The individuals in this chart are all current or former lobbyists who either serve as fundraisers for McCain's campaign or senior aides or advisers. There are currently 118 126 129 130 133 134 lobbyists working for or raising money for McCain's campaign.
Last Name First Name Firm / Employer Campaign Role Select List of Clients Source

Charlie Black, Rick Davis, and Paul Manafort are all part of a group called the The Torturers' Lobby because they are paid to represent Dictators, Oil Regimes, Terrorists, Child Enslavers, War Criminals and other such nice people. The Gas & Oil Party is very familiar with all these types of activities.

Rick Davis is his Campaign Manager. Charlie Black is his Chief Adviser.

This is one reason why Old Traitor McBush wants to stay in Iraq for a million years.

Pity that the Repubs have to resort to fear in order to get people's votes. Fear of gays and their gay weddings, terrists, oh and those really scary black people. And the Repubs have to play their trump card so early in the process too. Pity.

Beginning in 1999 and continuing throughout the years leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Charlie Black's lobbying firm represented Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress (INC), the most vocal Iraqi group calling for regime change [Los Angeles Times, 7/14/04]. Chalabi clearly had a lot to gain personally from a U.S. invasion. Living in exile from his homeland and viewed by many in Washington "as a possible successor to Saddam Hussein," regime change would allow him to return home and take a leadership role in rebuilding Iraq [BBC, 10/3/02]. Charlie Black's lobbying firm pushed Chalabi's interests in Washington and allowed him to gain access to the highest levels of government. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the fact that Chalabi was meeting in the Pentagon with high-level officials pushing for an invasion of Iraq nine days after 9/11 [New Yorker, 6/7/04]. It has since come to light that Chalabi helped engineer the claims that Saddam Hussein had W.M.D. and is very much responsible for helping bring about the U.S. war in Iraq. He has also been accused of passing American secrets to Iran.

Charlie Black and his lobbying firm had a lot to gain from their connection to Chalabi, too. In the early days of the Iraq war, Black and his firm were touting their connection to Chalabi and their experience dealing in Iraq [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10/1/03]. Black clearly saw his work prior to the 2003 invasion as laying the groundwork for new business opportunities for him and his clients. In August 2003, just months after the invasion, Black said:

Due to our past representation of the INC, we know and have worked with a lot of people who will be in the provisional government. We have a number of clients who are interested in doing business in Iraq. [National Journal, 8/2/03]

Black even said he was 'strongly considering' opening an office in Baghdad [National Journal, 8/2/03]. Over the past five years, Black and his firm have used their prior experience working in Iraq to help their clients gain lucrative contracts, and the firm has used its experience to draw new clients.

Black and Chalabi both got what they wanted. For Chalabi, it was a chance at power. For Black, it was endless war in a country he had more experience dealing than anyone else, allowing him to profit while American soldiers died. Now, it's clear that a McCain presidency would be in Black's best interest, as an endless war in Iraq and future wars across the region will continue to bring in the big bucks for him and his clients.
Black's Firm Worked for Ahmed Chalabi and the INC

Black Touted Connections to Chalabi. "BKSH & Associates, the lobby firm run by GOP strategist Charlie Black, touts its connections to Ahmed Chalabi (until recently a Pentagon sweetheart), who formerly headed the exiled Iraqi National Congress and is currently on Iraq's governing council."[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10/1/03]

BKSH's Lobbying Gave Chalabi Inside Access to Bush Administration. Roll Call reported that Chalabi gets help from "BKSH & Associates, the Washington firm founded by Charles Black, a longtime ally of President Bush. Those contacts have paid off: At this year's state of the union address, Chalabi sat in the VIP Box with first lady Laura Bush. [Roll Call, 2/24/04]

BKSH Developed INC's Communications Strategy. BKSH "won a State Department contract to help develop a communications strategy for the Iraqi National Congress (INC) in the years before the war." BKSH had a lobbyist in Baghdad in 2003 "to help the INC build a communications operation in Iraq." [The Hill, 2/7/06]
Chalabi's Role Leading up to the War

Chalabi Helped Engineer WMD Claims and Pushed Bush Administration to Attack Iraq. Meeting at the Pentagon nine days after the 9/11 attacks, Chalabi urged the Defense Policy Board, which advised Secretary Rumsfeld, "to skip any intervention in Afghanistan, where the Taliban had harbored Al Qaeda, and to proceed immediately with targeting Iraq. A participant at the meeting, who asked not to be named, recalled that Chalabi made a compelling case that the Americans would have an easy victory there: 'He said there'd be no resistance, no guerilla warfare from the Baathists, and a quick matter of establishing a government.' Soon afterward, however, Chalabi began to clash with the Administration. Chalabi told me that he would have preferred to sell the war to the American people on philosophical grounds, as a fight against genocidal tyranny and in favor of bringing democracy to the Arab world, but that this approach was rejected by the Bush Administration. 'Look, our focus was on Saddam's crimes, moral crimes, genocide,' Chalabi said. 'We were not focused on W.M.D. The U.S. asked us. We didn't bring these people up; they asked us! They requested this help from us.'" [New Yorker, 6/7/04]

* Former BKSH Employee Helped Sell WMD Claims. Francis Brooke, who "worked with Mr. Chalabi since 1990 - first as a consultant paid by the CIA and most recently as a consultant for BKSH and Associates, a company run by Charlie Black, a Republican Party veterain," helped focus on WMDs in the case for war. "Francis Brooke said that nobody had ordered the I.N.C. to focus solely on W.M.D.s. 'I'm a smart man,' he said. 'I saw what they wanted, and I adapted my strategy.'" Brooke and "the I.N.C. was enlisted to promote the danger posed by Saddam's regime. Brooke said, 'I sent out an all-points bulletin to our network, saying, 'Look, guys, get me a terrorist, or someone who workers with terrorists. And, if you can get stuff on W.M.D., sent it!''" [New Yorker, 6/7/04; Sunday Telegraph, 6/6/04]

Chalabi Accused of Giving False Info to U.S. Leading up to War. "Well, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi is stirring controversy again. Once the favorite of the Bush administration, Chalabi is in the U.S. on a trip some see as an attempt to rebuild his reputation. Critics, including some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, vilify Chalabi for allegedly feeding false pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons." [CNN, 11/14/05]

Chalabi Helped Spur U.S. Invasion with False Information. Knight Ridder described Chalabi as "the former exile who helped spur the U.S.-led invasion by feeding false intelligence to Washington about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and who returned to Iraq after Saddam's fall to craft himself into a political leader." [Knight Ridder, 1/14/06]
Chalabi's Shady Character

Chalabi Investigated for Passing American Secrets to Iran. The FBI invsestigated Chalabi, raiding his home and his office, "for allegedly passing classified information to Iran." According to CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "The FBI assistant director, John Miller, just put out a statement the other day saying they've interviewed a lot of people on the accusation that Ahmed Chalabi may have provided Iran with classified information about U.S. codes, code breaking equipment." [CNN, 11/14/05]

Chalabi Wanted for Fraud in Jordan. According to CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "He makes it clear he doesn't like the government of King Abdullah because he's wanted in Jordan for fraud. Supposedly, accused of stealing some $50 million over the year[s]." [CNN, 11/14/05]
Charlie Black: War Profiteer?

Black's Firm Involved "Pushing for the War." "BKSH had a special interest in Iraq. The firm was a key member of the coterie of talking heads, lobbyists, and politicians pushing for the war in Iraq that centered around Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), the anti-Saddam exile group, which was itself a BKSH client." [Washington Monthly, 6/1/05]

* Black's Firm Compared to Operators in Gold Rush. "In the gold rush of 1849, they say, it was not the miners who got rich, but the operators who sold the picks and the shovels and the wagons and the denim. So it was in Iraq, with the likes of Peg Bartel, the INC, and BKSH." [Washington Monthly, 6/1/05]

Black's Comments Show he Saw Iraq as a Personal Money-Maker for him and his Clients. "Over the past four years, BKSH has been boosting the interests of the Iraqi National Congress, whose leader, Ahmed Chalabi, was a key anti-Saddam opponent and now sits on the newly formed Iraqi Governing Council." "'Due to our past representation of the INC,' says Black, 'we know and have worked with a lot of people who will be in the provisional government. We have a number of clients who are interested in doing business in Iraq.' Black adds that his firm is 'strongly considering' opening an office in Baghdad." [National Journal, 8/2/03]

* Black Planned to Set up Iraq's First Lobbying Firm. According to the New Yorker, "Another top Republican lobbyist in Washington, Charlie Black, told me that his firm, BKSH & Associates, has plans to help Iraqis set up their own affiliated public-relations and government-relations firm; the company would become perhaps the first lobbying shop in Baghdad. Black is excited by the opportunities in Iraq, but he, too, has complaints. 'The problem in Iraq so far is it's slow and very confusing for people to figure out how to do business there,' he said. 'One week you go to Baghdad, and they say the decisions are being made at the Pentagon. Then you go to the Pentagon, and they say the decisions are being made in Baghdad. Only Halliburton is making money now!' He laughed. 'Is there too much cronyism? I just wish I could find the cronies.'" [The New Yorker, 2/16/04]

Black's Firm had Leg Up Because of Work for INC. Newsday reported, "BKSH & Associates, headed by longtime Republican insider Charles Black, represents Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, his former exile group, in Washington." Said one of lobbyists working for black: "What I think gives us a leg up, and I think we have a leg up, is the fact we have been working this issue for four-and-a-half years, and we know a lot of Iraqis that have been involved in the political process." [Newsday, 10/5/03]

Black's Clients Could Expect to be Well-Served in Seeking Iraq Contracts Because of Firm's History in Iraq. According to Energy Compass, "BKSH Associates is attracting similar interest. The company, which says its lobbyists include individuals who have worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, has over the years promoted the interests of Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). Since Chalabi and other INC members are on the governing council, BKSH's clients can expect to be well-served. They include, among others, Fluor, which has bid for work in Iraq, as well as US telecoms and engineering firms." [Energy Compass, 10/16/03]

Black's Firm has Represented 8 of Top 60 Defense Contractors. Charlie Black's firm, BKSH, has lobbied for 8 (or roughly 13%) of the top 60 companies receiving DOD contracts during 2007, including the top DOD contractor (Lockheed Martin) and six of the top 16 contractors. BKSH has represented Lockheed Martin, ranked first with over $36 billion in FY 2006 defense revenue; United Technologies, ranked 10th with over $7 billion in contracts; Thales, ranked 11th with nearly $7 billion in contracts; General Electric, ranked 14th, with over $4.5 billion in defense contracts; Honeywell, ranked 15th with $4.4 billion in contracts; Rolls-Royce, ranked 16th with over $4 billion in contracts; Harris, ranked 38th with $1.5 billion in contracts; and NEC, ranked 59th with over $700 million in contracts. [Army Times, accessed 5/16/08; Senate Lobbyist Disclosure Database, accessed 2/29/08]

* Lockheed Paid Black's Firm Over $625,000 Since 2002. Between 2002 and 2007, Lockheed Martin has paid Black's lobbying firm at least $627,500 for to lobby the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Office of Management and Budget, the House and the Senate. Black himself is listed as one of the lobbyists working on Lockheed's behalf for a portion of the firm's work. All of the lobbying done by the firm for Lockheed was on defense issues. [Analysis of Senate Lobbyist Disclosure Database, accessed 2/29/08]

* United Technologies Paid Black's Firm $650,000 since 2003. Since the middle of 2003, United Technologies has paid Black's lobbying firm $650,000 to lobby on its behalf. Charlie Black is listed as having personally handled this client. [Analysis of Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 2/29/08]

* Thales Inc. Paid Black's Firm $935,000 Since 2000. Between 2000 and the middle of 2007, Thales Inc. paid Charlie Black's lobbying firm $935,000 to lobby on its behalf. The firm has charged the contractor higher fees since the beginning of the Iraq war. From 2000-2003, the firm charged an average of just over $120,000. Since then, the firm has charged an average of approximately $160,000 per year. [Analysis of Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 2/29/08]

* General Electric Paid Black's Firm Nearly $1 Million Between 1999 And 2008. Since 1999, General Electric and General Electric Capital Services have paid Charlie Black's lobbying firm between $940,000 and $980,000 to lobby on its behalf. [Analysis of Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 2/29/08]

* NEC Paid Black's Firm $660,000 Between 2001 and 2005. Between 2001 and 2005, NEC USA, the U.S. branch of the Japanese defense contractor, paid Charlie Black's lobbying firm $660,000 to lobby Congress and the Department of Homeland Security. Charlie Black personally worked on the account. [Analysis of Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 2/29/08]

Four Black Clients Got Lucrative Iraq Contracts. An analysis of the Center for Public Integrity's (CPI) list of Iraq contractors and of the Senate's Lobbyist Disclosure Database shows that four of BKSH's clients have received lucrative government contracts for Iraq reconstruction. According to CPI, BKSH client Fluor has received over $3.7 billion in Iraq contracts; Harris Corporation has received $165 million; General Electric has received an unknown amount; and new client Blackwater - the notorious security firm - has received over $21 million. [Center for Public Integrity, accessed 2/29/08; Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 2/29/08]

Black Helped Fluor Corporation Become Top Contractor. "Through his lobbying firm, BKSH & Associates (a division of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller), Black represents Fluor Corporation, an engineering and construction firm that is one of the top contractors for post-war reconstruction in Iraq."

* Fluor Knowingly Over-Charged DOD And Dept. Of Energy. The American Prospect reported, "Last November, Fluor agreed to pay the government $12.5 million to settle a whistleblower suit alleging that the company had knowingly overbilled the Departments of Defense and Energy on contracts for tens of millions of dollars of illegal costs, including executive bonuses, land investments, construction and building improvements, luxury condos, fine art, a Mercedes driven by the company's president, and an antique Chippendale chair." [The American Prospect, 1/2006]

BKSH Lobbied For Firm That Handled Propaganda Articles In Iraqi Newspapers. The Hamilton Spectator reported, "The Lincoln Group, a previously little-known business intelligence company headed by a heretofore little known young Briton and Oxford graduate, Christian Bailey, now at the centre of controversy surrounding the Bush administration's covert propaganda war in Iraq. It was recently revealed that Bailey's company got the lion's share of a $100-million contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defense for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by U.S. 'psy-ops' troops." Additionally, the Lincoln Group was paid $20 million to place misleading stories in Anbar providence about U.S. forces running up to Iraqi elections. "The Lincoln Group has Republican links. Its lobbyists include Charles Black, an adviser to Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. and Marlin 'Buzz' Hefti, a former Pentagon director." [Hamilton Spectator, 1/7/06]

* Black's Firm Hired By "Psychological Warfare" Firm. Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter reported, "BKSH & Assoc. has been hired by the Lincoln Group. One of three firms selected last month by the U.S. Special Operations Command, to wage psychological warfare on behalf of the Pentagon in Iraq and other hot spots." [Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, 7/27/05]

Wye Oak Technology Hired BKSH To help Contractor Get Contracts In Post-Invasion Iraq. Washington Monthly reported, "In April of 2003, after the United States invaded Iraq, Stoffel retained the lobbying powerhouse BKSH, the firm headed by the influential Republican lobbyist Charles Black, to provide 'assistance in defense contract procurement,' for Wye Oak." [Washington Monthly, 6/1/05]

* Wye Oak Was "Proudly And Openly In Iraq To Make A Fortune." According to Washington Monthly, Dale Sfoffel, the founder and head of Wye Oak Technologies, "was a self-professed man of action, who was proudly and openly in Iraq to make a fortune." [Washington Monthly, 6/1/05]

Blackwater Enlisted Black To Repair Reputation. The International Herald Tribune reported, "Blackwater Worldwide, its reputation in tatters and its lucrative government contracts in jeopardy, is mounting an aggressive legal, political and public relations counterstrike." The work was "landed by BKSH...led by Charles Black Jr." A "BKSH associate had worked briefly in Iraq and met several Blackwater personnel." [International Herald Tribune, 11/2/07]

I fail to see how another "terrorist" attack on the US can help McSame. Wouldn't another attack simply repudiate everything that Bush/Cheney have been saying about how it's "not an accident" that we haven't been attacked again under their watch?

Here we go again with the same old baloney - trying to scare the sheep. Ever notice too how every four years the terror alerts get higher, and the stories about gay marriage and all the other unimportant issues rise up from the ashes?

Then when the republicans get in, all they do is make their fat friends richer.

I hope no one realizes that I'm very unaware that the US has been making unilateral incursions into Pakistan. Then I'd have to make yet ANOTHER justification of how I can be for and against something at the same time.

My mind must be slipping. It is so hard to remember what I actually stand for.

I want to win. Win what? Doesn't matter. How will we know we won? Doesn't matter. Is the surge actually accomplishing more than a temporary slowdown in deaths? Doesn't matter. What about the fact that the heavy deficit spending on the war is inflationary and is causing the price of gas and food and everything else to go up? Doesn't matter.

I'm bad at what I do, but I've been doing it for a long time. Vote for me.

I do not wish to discuss issues or any economics, military or history. I always start babbling so much, people start whispering that I am dumber than bush.

Instead, I will stick with race, smears, worry and personalties. the Repubs are going to attack me. you just wait. I will cower here in fear until they do. and when they do, I just hope that John Mccain makes them stop. all that truth floating around can't be good for my prospects.

Black's comments tipped the McCain campaign's hand. You knew that they were going to try to play the terror card sometime during the campaign because that and the race card are the only things this campaign has to offer. What happened was the Black showed his hand early, much too early and allow the Obama campaign to seize the issue ... and maybe to seize it as their own. How? The Bush war on terror is an utter and complete failure - just like everything else the Bush Idiocracy has attempted. The terror card is a play on people's fear which by its very nature is irrational and be played only when people don't have enough time to think things through, so it must be played at the end of a campaign - not at the beginning. The Obama Campaign now has the time to layout the failures of the Bushies in the very area where Republicans have held some sway in the "debate" - terror. And what about the war on terror, well the major front has been Afghanistan, and through incompetence and arrogance, that front is failing. The terrorists and their backers are in resurgence - all due to the stupidity of the Bush Administration. That's a hard story to tell, because it requires more than 15 seconds to tell it. In fact, it will require weeks and weeks, but the McCain Campaign have shown us their hand, now it's time for Obama and his supporters (like myself) to discuss just how the Bush and his band of merry, idiotic Republicans and other assort Neo-cons including McCain has messed this one up as well.

Mccain and George Bush are examples of "Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome". They want to start something so they can be seen as saviors. Thus Bush's self claimed title or a "War time president". Mccain is the same, it defines him. He will create a problem so he can be our saviour. Does anyone really believe we are in grave danger of terrorists attacks? The whole secret of the terrorist attack is your inability to prevent it, that is where the terror comes from. If terrorists wanted to attack us they would. They don't want to. Terror attacks are so easy it is a joke from just walking into a supermarket and blowing it up of something as simple as starting forest fires. You don't even need any resources to start fires. Lets say fifty conspirators at the same moment started fifty fires nation wide in our national parks during a dry season. Can you imagine the damage that would do? Plus the fact that we know it was done on propose. A few bombings in a random movie theaters around the country would close movie theaters all over the country and chase us into our houses. You saw how the public reacted a few years ago to the sniper. How about a few shopping centers. Point is, there has been no terror because there is not really a threat. Terror is easy, they just don't want to do it. Most of our fears are manufactured.

+++++++++++
Objective Democrats, Independents, and Republicans know this is not John McCain's view on terrorism and another attack in our country. You may not agree with his policies but you know he is a patriot and would do everything in his power to protect our country.

Charlie Black's comment shows what the McCain's campaign relies on - fear tactics and a bizarre love of war. It's sad that that's all they have to use in this campaign. They know the American people are aware of the GOP war-mongering. I'm glad to see that Americans are recognizing this, but I want to the Media to stop giving McCain a free-ride in the press.

When you look at the GOP brand, you have to realize that McCain's buddies - Bush and Cheney - are gaining money from this war in Iraq. Cheney, for example, is with Halliburton, and Halliburton is rebuilding Iraq! So McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for the next 100 years so his buddy Cheney will make BILLIONS in dollars. Is that right? The American people don't think so.

Also, McCain's buddy Bush wants to keep us in Iraq because of the oil there. Bush is worried that if we leave, we won't have our hands on their oil! Bush is keeping us poor because he won't let us escape from our reliance on oil. We must stop McCain! We can't afford to keep using ONLY oil,

If you vote for McCain, you're voting for Bush and Cheney (and all their dirty tricks). We can't let that happen. Register to vote - so we can stop McCain in November. Go to the following link to register to vote, so we can win back the USA in November 2008.

To be honest, I find it shameful that a presidential candidate should even think of suggesting that he will keep America more safe than his opponent. This is such a basic duty that both candidates should accept that the other will do his utmost to keep America safe. America is kept safe from terrorism by the dedication of the intelligence, FBI and police officers working in counterterrorism. If candidate A says that candidate B will not keep America safe he is, in effect, saying candidate B will stop those officers from working properly.

As it states in the article, 'On the call, Ben-Veniste insisted that the "invasion of Iraq has become the biggest recruiting poster for terrorists around the world".' Four Brits blew themselves up killing 52 people in London's transport as a protest against the British government sending troops to invade Iraq. What we do require of the next president is to follow a foreign policy that does not encourage others to attack. We want to hear from both candidates what they will do to raise America's standing in the world so that people no longer want to attack us.

The NEO-CONS and STILL in control of the republican party. The scum will float right into the whitehouse as political appointees, judges, department heads... just like the Bushco slime drifted right on in.

If you want a government that ignores the constitution, believes separation of church and state is only for religions other than evangelical christianity, and follows an immoral path of lying to the public while doing the opposite... Then McCain's administration is the right one for you!

Ok so since we are crucifying Obama for the silliest things, help me to understand something. John McCain got shot down, captured and was a POW for 5 years in which he was tortued and confessed.....hmnmmmm and this makes him qualified for????????? oh yeah, it qualifies him to be a captured pow! If this is what the republicans call qualifications to be PRESIDENT then they are the most pathetic political party in history. Lets let a person who wasn't a pow, didn't confessed while a POW and for christ sake can give a damn high five!!!!

When you only lead on one issue of course you are going to try and make it the ONE issue.

If I was a McCain supporter I would be leery of his newfound tendency to exaggerate an issue. Take his statement that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat we face and another attack could be devastating. These are both patently untrue. Russia's couple thousand nukes combined with its back alley brawling approach to foreign policy, especially energy policy, is a bigger threat. China, in one piece or in lots of pieces, is a bigger threat. A Pakistan with an extremist government would force the US to do something militarily, and a South Asia nuclear war could easily result. That is a bigger threat. Kim Jong Il nuking South Korea and/or Japan is a bigger threat. And as to an attack being devastating, outside of a group using several nuclear weapons, 'would be bad' not 'would be devastating' is the correct descriptor.

Then take McCain's economic policy. He started off with the offshore drilling. That could be devastating to Obama. It is not a flip-flop when most of America followed the same path as you. It also reestablishes his reputation for straight talk about unpleasant truths. A reputation that was beginning to fade. Obama responds with a Democratic standard, there are alternatives, drilling will take too long. The problem is, he's got nothing that would be faster. It is one thing for voters to accept expensive gasoline, natural gas and electricity if they know you are working on something to fix it. Even if it is a big fix that will take years. Compare that to Obama's reply which is a bunch of platitudes with no time lines. But then, McCain goes off announcing a $300 million dollar battery prize. Not only is the prize too much (DARPA's grand challenge and the X-prize were a lot smaller and a lot more challenging), but it is aimed at a field that has a lot of established players both big and small plus venture capital on tap. Prizes are to stimulate action in a minor or stalled field, not to be a government hand out for what was already being done.

McCain starts with something most voters are willing to give him credit for: the surge, 'telling the truth' on offshore drilling, and then goes off into deranged grandpa land. Obama's biggest weakness is being seeing as a cloistered elitist who doesn't care about the common voter. Against an opponent who plays to type his change message and oratory of hope trumps. But McCain doesn't play to type, he can neutralize what Obama used to beat the establishment Clinton. Clinton came back when she played tough. McCain is tough. He is also experienced and can speak truth to power. If Obama loses, and I still don't think it is a likely possibility, it will be because McCain defines him as the professor who can measure a quark but can't change a light bulb. Which is a real shame because McCain is begging to be labeled as deranged old grandpa McCain who sometimes gets it right in between his bouts of senility.

You don't appreciate a metaphor? "You don't bring a knife to a gunfight " is a very old saying and means you understand what you have gotten yourself into. It was meant to put Mccain and his people on notice and I think it did the job. Mccain like to portray Obama as weak, Obama was making a point he knows hpw to play the game also.

++++++++
Doesn't Obama's gun comment deserve to be investigated?

In the Chicago Tribune: June 23 2008
Obama made an outrageous statement:

He meant it as a joke, but when Barack Obama recently parodied a famous line from "The Untouchables" he also dredged up the reputation of his longtime home as a place that is rough, raw and unlikely to breed reform.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said during a Philadelphia fundraiser, explaining the Chicago-style approach to hard-nosed politics.

When I first saw Black's comments, they reminded me so much of Shaheen's in New Hampshire and other by Clinton supporters over the course of the primaries, that I have to wonder if the McCain campaign is using that Clintonian tactic.

Even though the Obama people respond quickly, I've begun to believe that the tactic works more often than not.

Is an angry former Clinton staffer now advising the McCain group?

MarkInAustin - McCain went to the National War College in Washington, DC at Fort McNair; not the Naval War College. The National War College is a multi-service operation. Because of their proximity to Government assets, their curriculum could even be a notch above any of the individual services' War Colleges.

These GOPers are soooo stupid. Like this is 2002. They say Bush protected us and we haven't had an attack since 9/11 - this is a lie. Do they forget the Anthrax attack which was almost certainly a right-wing domestic terrorist (all the targets were dems)?

But they can count on their press enablers to bury the Black story.

I'll listen to GOP seriously when McCain's party captures Osama Ibn Laden. Util then they are just liars, blowhards, and (their leaders) war criminals.

Puh-leeze! No one should be the least bit surprised that Fear Politics '04 and Fear Politics '06 is being repeated in the '08 campaign. In both of our last two elections, every time the Republicans needed a bump in the polls the terror alert level got raised to orange or red. Bush performs poorly in a debate? Terror alert level ORANGE! Economic indicators that don't bode well for the current administration? Terror alert level ORANGE! Some Republican Congressman gets caught sending obscene messages to teenage pages? Terror alert level RED! The terror alert levels have been so badly misused for political purposes that Americans don't even respond to them any longer. Having said that, if McCain is putting all his eggs in the terror basket, he's going to have a rude awakening come November 5.

So what will the October Surprise be from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and our ever-popular Republican Party? Nuking Iraq? Another security breach like 9/11?

I have no doubt many Americans will finally get the feeling they're being played by the neo-cons in the Republican Party. The question is, will it be a large enough majority so this election will not be stolen like the last two?

Objective Democrats, Independents, and Republicans know this is not John McCain's view on terrorism and another attack in our country. You may not agree with his policies but you know he is a patriot and would do everything in his power to protect our country.

Why is everyone mad at Black? He is totally right, which is why McCain and his people along with Traitor-liars Bush, Cheney and Rove are salivating at the prospects of having a terrorist attack in late October.

And, isn't it interesting that something bad always seems to happen when it's most advantageous to Republicans???

So, if McCain is down in the polls, be careful in late October because the masters of dishonesty and destruction still control the CIA, FBI, NSA, Blackwater, and the military. Be VERY careful.

I am not shocked about what Charlie Black said. It is the same old G.O.P playbook. Now it is no-way John McCain can distance hisself from W. now. The using the same game plan. Fear politics is what got W. re-elected and obviously John McCain is trying the same strategy

I am not shocked about what Charlie Black said. It is the same old G.O.P playbook. Now it is no-way John McCain can distance hisself from W. now. The using the same game plan. Fear politics is what got W. re-elected and obviously John McCain is trying the same strategy

Let's make sure I understand, McCain gets his tail feathers flamed, loses his million dollar aircraft, ends up a POW for 5 years, confesses under torture and then claims to be the expert on National Security. Is that about right? Have I got a bridge for you.

Let's make sure I understand, McCain gets his tail feathers flamed, loses his million dollar aircraft, ends up a POW for 5 years, confesses under torture and then claims to be the expert on National Security. Is that about right? Have I got a bridge for you.

Disappointed - you appear to be disappointed that the Post isn't trumpeting your view. In which case, I suggest you head to the blogosphere. Have you forgotten about the fact that it was the Post that broke the Walter Reed story? They're still doing their job. You're just not paying attenting.

OD - the irony is you commenting on a story be buried THAT'S COVERED HERE?

How is this (god forbid a terrorist attack on us soil)helping McCain?. We are suppose to be safer now because of Bush's and republican's experiences on national security, right?. So....oh never mind. Terror/Fear mongering again.

In the Chicago Tribune: June 23 2008
Obama made an outrageous statement:

He meant it as a joke, but when Barack Obama recently parodied a famous line from "The Untouchables" he also dredged up the reputation of his longtime home as a place that is rough, raw and unlikely to breed reform.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said during a Philadelphia fundraiser, explaining the Chicago-style approach to hard-nosed politics.

In the Chicago Tribune: June 23 2008
Obama made an outrageous statement:

He meant it as a joke, but when Barack Obama recently parodied a famous line from "The Untouchables" he also dredged up the reputation of his longtime home as a place that is rough, raw and unlikely to breed reform.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said during a Philadelphia fundraiser, explaining the Chicago-style approach to hard-nosed politics.

This is a chilling view into the thought processes of a potential McCain administration. If elected in 2008, would they start a war with Iran or North Korea in 2012 because it would help them get re-elected? Is John McCain really a national security risk?

They have to. if Bush and Mccain had his way it would be covered up. Mccain is the one who claims you can just walk down the streets in Iraq in total safety. I think 30 were killed the day he made those statements. We have to point to the obvious lies and distortions of the truth.

++++++++++
Obama supporters routinely use terrorist attacks in Iraq to support their candidate.

I have to say I am truly disgusted by the overwhelmingly obvious bias shown here by the WaPo. As soon as one of Obama's advisors makes a slip, it is smeared all over headlines with negative titles, but when McCains senior advisor makes such an offensive statement it is barely even covered...

what happened to fair debate and media?
what happened to the paper that took down watergate?

The Republicans have been playing the terror card for years, but the facts are against them.
1) The Republican congress, with McCain as a starring member, ignored teh recommendations of the 9/11 commission for years. As soon as the Democrats controlled Congress, they passed the recommendations.
2) Obama introduced legislation to improve the security around chemical plants -- which maters if you're downwind from one. What proposals has McCain made?

I wonder, if Obama or one of his people had said this, would he get a "pass" like McCain and his wife have gotten over the years? Just because he was a prisoner of war doesn't make him infallible. To me getting caught/captured was a mistake on his part.
as a Vietnam vet, I don't consider whether a or not a person was in the military service as a prerequisite of being patriotic or being a "prisoner of war" of giving you more or less insight into foreign affairs. I think in the opposite. When you hear McCain talking about "surrendering" in Iraq and leaving before the job is done, you kind of have to think is he still bitter about us losing Vietnam? A war such as this one, that should never have been fought in the first place. The press needs to quit giving him a pass on his gaffes, and call him out, they need to get a pair of B A L Ls. He has been given too many passes over the years. Obama is being called a neophyte, and I want to know what McCains so called experience is. This is the same ammo that Clinton used against Obama to no avail. The straight talk express is should be called the zig zag express, and he needs to really be scrutinized like Obama......

If you're tired of scoundrels like Charlie Black, then this is the time to show you won't stand for it. To defeat McCain in November, we need to raise more funds for the Democratic candidates. To help, you can visit the Democrats' website and contribute money to them. It's quick, easy, and it helps to crush the GOP.

The terrorists of 9/11 succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Although the results were great we have let the actions of what were a very few, change our very existence. We were not attacked by a country. They didn't posses a standing army or military force. yet our reaction was to blindly strike out. The bush administration used it to attempt to find a place for themselves in history. George Bush, and you can check this, began referring to himself as a "War time president" at every opportunity almost right away. He moved from reality to a fantasy world, almost akin to playing a video game with our military, right before of our eyes yet no one could do anything about it. At about the time of the 2004 elections they used terror alerts to scare the public. Alerts that now in hindsight we don't even know if they really existed. Now in 2008 we are being subjected to the same tactic's again. You just wait, as the election gets closer there will all of a sudden be alerts again just as in 2004. John Mccain like George Bush defines himself by war, it is his only claim to fame. He says he hates war but in reality it is in his mind all there is that validates him. This man can not be elected president. I don't care if you hate Obama or hate his church or his wife it doesn't matter. He is all that stands between us and a complete collapse of our country if it is allowed to fall into the hands of a man that may in fact be insane. Obama may be a small gamble I admit, but there is no gamble with John Mccain. Mccain will, WILL, do damage to our country that none of us will ever see repaired in our lifetimes, if ever. We may be on the verge of losing it all, everything our country has accomplished in it's total existence. This will be the most important election in most of our lifetimes.

I believe senator B. Obama has than more to reach people ON ISSUES than Sen. Mccain. I believe Sen Mccain is a true Patriot, but he lacks habilty to run our Economy, and his surronded by Evil Snakes like Mr. Black , who sees TERRORIST ATTACKS AS A "BIG ADVANTAGE".

I have been with GOP for most of my life... but in November I will vote for ISSUES,

I wonder if a successful terrorist strike would actually help the GOP/McCain.
Posted by: bsimon | June 24, 2008 11:42 AM

I think Black believes it would. Not that I believe he would want such a thing to happen. But I think McCain (and his camp) believe the one issue he can win on is his foriegn policy strength. The comment highlights how the Republicans would like to frame the election conversation around foriegn policy and national security. Unfortunately, other issues are dominating the conversation and those issues are losers for the Republicans this cycle. The pendulum is swinging left back towards the center.

Honestly, the events for the next 4 years are a fate a compli, the question is who will be best to face them. There seems to be no place to go in the game of chicken that is going on between Isreal and Iran. Isreal will not back down from the stance that Iran can't be allowed to develop nukes, and Iran seems to believe the world is the same as 9/10...a world-view that got Saddam killed. You can't call for the destruction of Isreal, while at the same time publicly pursuing nukes...conflict is coming, unless Iran backs down.

I for one am going to vote for the candidate with the experience...not "hope" our next president is a fast learner.

Charlie Black said nothing that everyone else who knows politics hasn't said or thought.

John McCain gets an advantage the minute we make terrorism and security a top issue in the campaign.

The fact that Barack Obama is a neophyte when it comes to foreign policy should surprise no Democrats- it was a key issue in the campaign and we decided to nominate the neophyte so now let's live with it.

The only hope we have is that terrorists won't want John McCain as President so they won't do anything between now and November. Then we hope that Obama will surprise them and all of us and be just as tough as McCain.

I think a comment like "many Rs want another terrorist attack" is so far out of bounds that it deserves being called out for criticism. The possibility that loyal Americans can disagree without being hateful is diminished by posters who do not think before engaging the keyboard. There are plenty of issues to engage about without ad hominem attacks on another's patriotism - and this goes for the posters who write that Ds are pinko defeatists, as well.

If half of your countrymen are traitors who invite destruction and the other half are traitors who invite defeat you may want to move to another planet.

JimD in FL writes
"I think Black just said out loud what everyone who follows politics think. The only Republican strength in the minds of the electorate is their anti-terror position."

I wonder if a successful terrorist strike would actually help the GOP/McCain. Wouldn't it actually demonstrate that current policy is not working? Kindof like how the NIE says that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists than its killed and/or neutralized? (Note to The Fix: Whether Ben-Veniste 'insisted' this or not, it is considered factual by our intelligence services)

Caliguy - there's a big difference between noting that a terrorist attack would help McCain and hoping for one. Note the timing of the train bombings in Spain. These were executed specifically to influence the outcome of the election and did. I think it was the previous government blaming the attacks on ETA without evidence, rather than the attacks themselves, that changed the results. Still, it is undeniable that the Socialists would not have taken power without those events and the government's reaction to them.

Put it another way. If the economy is doing poorly, this tends to help the party that doesn't hold the white house. The current economic climate is considered to help the Democratic candidate? Does this mean that Obama is hoping for a recession? No.

Bush showed that one could beat the incumbent party even with a strong economy. Likewise Obama could defeat McCain even if there were such a attack.

So, now Charles Black is hoping for a major terrorist attack on American soil to give John McSame's campaign a "big boost". With this comment, I've got to ask will McSame go further than Bush in doing, saying, or hoping for anything that will help him win the White House. The latest Newsweek Poll showing that Obama has opened up a 16% lead over McSame must be correct for McSame to be this desperate. Here is the quote from Fortune Magazine: "We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black." See http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/index.htm or http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/mccain-adviser-apologizes-for-terrorism-remark/index.html

Anonymous - Actually, it is anti-alcohol advocates who have fought to prevent alcohol content being put on the labels of beer. The rationale is that people wanting to get drunk quickly will gravitate towards brews with higher alcohold content. Contrast that with the U.K where the ABV (average % alcohol by volume) is on the taps. You can pretty much pick the strength of the brew.

You're welcome to go after the McCains, but the argument you make is specious.

The fact that Charlie Black's comments were in Fortune magazine is an indication it was not for the general public to hear but for the elite in the Rep. Party to know what the game plan is.

If there were a terrorist attack(god help us) wouldnt that be an indictment of the Bush admin and McCain as waterboy for them - that they had no clue how to keep America safe. If anyone has any doubt thaey should look at the pitiful state of the Dept of Homeland Security

Americans should live more in fear of continued declines in their standards of living than they should of terrorist attacks because the Iraq War is bleeding American dry.

By the way, how come there isnt any comment about the size of the deficit and the problems that are likely in the future because of it? Not in the press, not among the candidates. Its really sad but we as a country are really in denial of how large a mess Bush has made.

The guilt by association game has got to stop on both sides. When I pull the lever, hit the touch screen, or even fill in the ballot with a pencil, I'll be voting for Nader, Barr, McCain, or Obama. I think most Americans, me included, are maxed out on the search for dirt by the press on every campaign worker in both parties. Whether it's Blacks past corporate work or Obama's ethanol industry staffers or the Rezko, Wright, and Keating connections, let's vote for the candidate, not his campaign staff or advisers. I could care less what Geraldine Ferraro says.

Meh. I dont think anyone would really dispute that what Black said is very true. When people scared and wanna "git them turrurists" then they vote republican in overwhelming numbers. In honesty, its less fear mongering that he went ahead and acknowledged it as a simple fact. It would have been fear mongering if, say, he had implied a terrorist attack would happen if Obama is elected. Certainly no one would be so indecent as to do tha...oh wait, it happened last week. The "9/10 Candidate", anyone? What comes after 9/10? 9/11! OMG WE'RE ALL SCREWED IF WE ELECT OBAMA THE TURRURISTS ARE COMING TO GET US! SAVE US MCCAIN!

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Tarheel, maybe you should find out who Charlie Black is. He's not some minor campaign official; he's McCain's chief campaign adviser, and he's been involved in Republican presidential politics for 30 years. And his remarks were made last week, not last year.

Europe and,I guess the U.S.,are giving 240 million dollars to the Palestinian Authority to build court houses,police forces and so on.What a joke.How many court houses will 240 million build?Maybe the foundation for one.But 240 million is enough to grease the pockets of the top people in the P.A.Meanwhile Hamas continues to prove that it is the true representative of the Palestinian people whose leaders actually try to to stand up and protect the people.Of course it was only a few months ago that the U.S.Congress granted 30 billion dollars of American taxpayer money to Israel.You don't hear the Israelis crying about food and gas prices.They are doing just fine.One of the highest per capitas in the world and that 30 billion will boost it even more.

Finally, someone does a story on Cindy McCain's career as owner/ top lobbyist for the beer industry, whose company has opposed such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in fighting proposed federal rules requiring alcohol content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor.

Its executives, including John McCain's son Andrew, have written at least 10 letters in recent years to the Treasury Department, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a beer industry political action committee, and hold a seat on the board of the politically powerful National Beer Wholesalers Assn.

Hensley has run afoul of health advocacy groups that have tried to rein in appeals to young drinkers. For example, the company distributes caffeinated alcoholic drinks that public health groups say put young and underage consumers at risk by disguising the effects of intoxication.

If her husband is elected president and she retains her role at Hensley, she will set a precedent for outside corporate activity by a first lady.

Political analysts said they were astounded that the presumptive Republican nominee had not already addressed the issue.

"You can't run a beer company out of the White House," said Samuel L. Popkin, a political science professor at UC San Diego. "You can't run any company from the White House. McCain is leaving a live hand grenade on the table, a major embarrassment."

Who's Charlie Black? Actually, who cares. An article based on an unimportant McCain adviser's remarks in 2007 being used to bash McCain today. How typical. How about this election cycle we stick to the candidate's own remarks? Look at the cries of unfairness we heard about Rev. Wright's remarks reflecting on Obama. Guess in the Democrats world the same rules never apply to both politcal camps.

If as a matter of mere political prognostication Black believes that Americans will be driven to vote R by an attack it can stand as merely an honest answer.

If, based on the strategy that claiming Muslims of a fundie stripe pose a death threat to western civilization, Black saw a golden opportunity to raise the ante, it was fear-mongering, whether honest or not.

If Black and McC truly believe that fundie Muslim terrorists ARE an "existential" threat, they are just wrong, as JimD and Blarg among others have stated.

So while I will give Black a 2/3 pass on whether he was fear-mongering, the quote does call that issue to mind.

The Naval Academy and the Navy War College both provide strong historical grounding in FP considerations.
-------------------
They do if you are awake in the classes. McShame only got into the school because of his family and finished in the bottom five of his class. I guess that's how he learned how to crash a plane, leading to his being a 'hero'.

How is this the fear card? Black was pressed on the issue, as the article states. He said that McCain would benefit from a terrorist attack because he was asked. This is what we call "bating journalism." Perhaps he should have refrained from answering the question, but he answered it honestly, from his perspective.

This is in absolutely no way the "politics of fear." There is nothing that so much as suggests that Black or McCain wishes a terrorist attack; this is an inference made by people who already oppose McCain for their own reasons.

...Ben-Veniste insisted that the "invasion of Iraq has become the biggest recruiting poster for terrorists around the world." He added that what appealed to him about Obama as a candidate is the "concept of restoring America's place in the world" and said that the way to win the war on terror is through a combination of "muscle and diplomacy."

U.S. efforts to combat terrorism have been used for many years now for political purposes, and this is deeply unfortunate. This is an area of governance that should NOT be politicized. For one thing, as Richard Clark pointed out last night, the terrorists monitor U.S. media and news, and saying something like "a terrorist attack will be helpful to [name political group here] this fall," is basically inviting terrorists to come on over and influence the American elections.

We've got to stop using fear of terrorism as a propaganda tool. And we've got to stop thinking that countering terrorism is more important to Republicans than it is to Democrats. This is an issue that affects EVERYONE'S lives.

And certainly, political strategists have got to stop hoping for a bump in the numbers following a violent attack. This issue has to be addressed regardless of party affiliation.

Apart from the ruthless, bloody ambition that Black's comment exposed [ to be expected from a man who makes millions lobbying for brutal dictators[ it says everything about how repubicans will run this campaign -- as a third term for Bush. Play the fear and terrorism card one again to the hilt, try to scare the bejeezus out of the American public so they won't notice that their pockets are still being picked and they are getting progressively, and rapidly, poorer.

The best thing that ever happened to George Bush was 9-11. I'm not one of those that thinks he was behind it (although clearly he ignored all warnings and did nothing to stop it). But it was the thing he wanted most. And McCllelan's book confirms it - Bush always thought a war president was one that was best remembered by history. So he got his war. And look where we are now.

Really, while they won't come out openly and say it, the GOP would be delighted over another terrorist attack. They could exploit it for political gains the way Bush did. The Fix is just too much of a wimp to call a spade a spade. Black was saying what he, McC*nt and the rest of the GOP really believe - that terrorist attacks are horrendous for the 99 percenters, but great news for the 1 percenters that have profited like never before under George Bush. And that's good business for the GOP.

Aside from the offensiveness of Mr. Black's comments, I'm trying to figure out his logic and why some regard it as truth. Why is the person who is more likely to go charging quickly into battle without allies or facts considered the better candidate to keep us safe in the event of another attack? Do we need a repeat of Iraq in Iran? Are we ready to bring back the draft? Should we take on the entire middle east? John McCain knows one foreign policy solution, and that is war and fighting. We now live in a society where any types of discussion, negotiation, working with allies, etc. is considered weak. I recall a time when making the decision to kill thousands of people and send our kids to war was the most serious and difficult decision one could make...the decision of last resort. I certainly don't want the draft back, as I don't trust anyone currently running our country to safeguard my children. However, it really makes mewonder if that, when we gave up the draft, we assured we never take the horror of war seriously because we got rid of the collective sense of responsibility. Now, it seems we live in a society where the neocons ratchet up the fear, and we respond with an easy 'yes' when asked whether other people's children should die in the middle east.

What I find puzzling is that over 50% of Americans polled on this question of who would better protect us in the event of another terrorist attack believe that McCain would be their choice. Why? What in the world do they think McCain would do that Obama wouldn't? Or, why hasn't the public figured out that the very worst thing you can do is precisely what George W. Bush did--and McCain supported--in reaction to 9-11. He went off half cocked, launced two wars putting American troops into two Middle and Near Eastern countries all to no avail. The perpetrators of 9-11 are still at large and now we are in two separate no win scenarios in both those countries that will keep us tied down and depleting our Treasury for years to come?

No thanks Charlie! I don't buy the premise at all. And that 50% plus better rethink if they don't want another American President going off half cocked and getting us into yet another strategic blunder in yet another no win scenario.

I will really be nice when Americans educate themselves enough to not allow terror to be the ace card for idiot politicians. How much of our souls are we willing to sell simply to win political favor? It will truly be unfortunate to see an election won on fear again. McCain's advisor should be publicly flogged! Additionally, McCain running on Iraq is another despicable act! No one should be able to run a campaign on the lives of dead soldiers!

I will really be nice when Americans educate themselves enough to not allow terror to be the ace card for idiot politicians. How much of our souls are we willing to sell simply to win political favor? It will truly be unfortunate to see an election won on fear again. McCain's advisor should be publicly flogged! Additionally, McCain running on Iraq is another despicable act! No one should be able to run a campaign on the lives of dead soldiers!

If a Barack Obama campaign advisor had made such a comment, does anyone doubt this would have been on the front pages for days, eventually resulting in the person's having to leave the campaign? Samantha Power had to resign for the insipid 'monster' comment. But, with McCain, it's not anywhere near the Washington Post front page. When is the WaPo going to start really publicizing McCain's gaffes and flip flops the way they go after Obama?

Aside from being stupid, Black's comments are also wrong. If the US is attacked again before the election, we won't be suckered into rallying around the deadbeat, absentee daddy party. They've made it pretty clear over the past seven-plus years that their priorities are, in order: political advantage, crony enrichment and blame avoidance. National interest and public safety come somewhere down the line, way after mercenary immunity but before universal health care.

Bill Kristol also played the fear card
this past Sunday on 'Fixed Noose Sinday'. He said that if OBama wins then Bush will bomb Iran, but if McCain wins then Bush will let it alone. Wow, such breathtaking fear and war mongering! Kristol is hateful and a shameless villain. So Bill, never mind just 'bombing' Iran for clear and present dangerous reasons, but Bush would do it for political reasons. Yes, Kris, that is what you said. You little wretch.

When BHO calls upon the legacy of Bush 41 in FP he exhibits the sounder global view, I think. I do not think the collective memory is as shopworn as mine, but it seems ironic to someone almost as old as McC that McC would evoke Bush 43's FP instead of Bush 41's. I expected so much more from a man who has given so much more; a man who rose to prominence during Bush 41's presidency.

The Naval Academy and the Navy War College both provide strong historical grounding in FP considerations. Years as a diligent senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee should have demonstrated to McC the fallacies of Wolfowitz's neo - conservatism.

But no - we are hearing from Kristol and Black about Arabs "threatening our very existence" - why? Where is the pragmatic world view? It pops up from time-to-time:
e.g.,"We will listen to our allies". Then it disappears in the fog of fear talk.

Black is being taken to task for committing the cardinal sin: honesty. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone at all interested in the campaign (and the posters are by definition) that a terrorist attack in the U.S. would play in favor of the GOP. An unsuccessful attack even more so. One could argue that Al Qaeda will be gearing up for this as tipping the race in favor of the GOP means a more interventionist U.S. policy, which they favor.

This much having been said, the Rudy strategy (9/11) didn't work in the primaries (9/11) and won't be enough (9/11) in the fall. Did I mention 9/11?

Terrible remarks. However, why is it assumed that it would help McCain if an attacked happen again. It could have the opposite effect. Obama has been saying all
along that Bush and McCain's policies has
not made America more safe from terrorists.
If there were another attack on the USA,
some would fault Bush and McCain for not getting Osama in the first place, instead of starting a war in Iraq, and most of our
troops are there, instead of getting Osama.
It could be argued that America is less safe, and "God Forbid" another attack may
prove the point.

A lot of people are commenting that Republicans are good at using this so called "fear card," and I suppose that is one way of looking at it. But I think, and I think McCain looks at it as understanding the reality of the world we live in today. The United States is not invincible and we have certainly seen that we are, in fact, vulnerable much like everyone else. Therefore, we need a president who, in the worst of all possible situations, could lead us through it effectively. That is why it's important to have a strong leader who understands that terrorism is an important issue. It's not a matter of wanting another attack or inflicting fear in people. It's a reality and it will be an issue in elections in this nation for a long time, so you might as well get used to it.

If we are attacked by terrorists before the election - it will be the fault of the Republican party. Why? Because they are in charge.

How in the world can they be the one to protect us, when they were not able to do so on 9/11 and if attacked again it would now be twice with them in charge.

Giving the GOP credit for "we have not been attacked again since 9/11"; is like saying that my house that burned down because of my negigence, has not burned down again since I have done alot of stuff to prevent it form happening again - stuff I should of done in the first place.

so i ask you, how do you combat terrorism? FIRST- well, it appears we already HAVE thousands of national, state, and local cops to intervene on our behalf. if they would just ALL learn how to use a fully up-to-date computer system which connects dots better than any other system of its kind in the world (which we would in turn share with our now-dwindling allies), as they say, an ounce of prevention... SECOND- INFRASTRUCTURE. a strong country is by definition one in which roads, bridges, water works, the energy grid, an educational system second to none, and an ability to combat natural disasters which are becoming a near-daily event of enormous consequence, are all addressed with the same sense of purpose as is the role of our military services, which are, btw, in their WW-2/Korean War configurations and capabilities becoming more antiquated every day. plus we no longer have the population to fuel a multi-war infantry, AND provide adequate personnel to our numerous military bases around the world- AND, BTW, find enough taxpayers to fund this enormous expense.
Obama may not have the same gusto towards military affairs that some (including myself on occassion) would desire, but i think he is working very hard to try to strengthen us from within- a place in which national pride can truly flourish. but if self-government and democracy becomes broken, and the relationship between the private and public sectors does not acheive a balance that benefits this nation first, seeking profitability without undermining the economic stability, self-respect, and civil liberties that citizens need in order to be proud of the flag in the first place, then there won't be anything left worth fighting for, either in the here and now, or in the days to come.
so actually, we really don't have to "change" anything- it is after all OUR country, and our constitutional right, as M.L.King kept reminding ALL of us, to get out and participate in the political system. and when we get up off of our duffs and do this, Bin Laden will find it impossible to threaten or terrorise us ever again. or are we to remain "weak" and "afraid" unless a certain politician becomes the president, who perhaps will only continue to make us feel vulnerable? we've already bombed two countries, imprisoned and "interrogated" hundreds of people who "meant us harm", and we're still uncertain about whether or not "the terrorists" have learned their lesson? ask yourself by what tactics and then how much time will it take before we can feel more secure on this issue. if the "experts" cannot present a convincing argument identifying what risks we face, along with the costs both in human and monetary terms required to minimize these threats, this lack of a national policy and direction of purpose that we can all understand and embrace will leave us essentially in the same place we were on September Twelve. We The People need answers, good ones, not "don't vote for my opponent- he won't know what to do."

Of course, if McCain wants to run as Bush's national security remora, then he needs to stand by Shrub's unsupportable "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" mantra. If (God forbid) there is another terrorist attack on America before the election, it kind of belies that theory, and McSame is shown to have supported policies that didn't make us safer.

This is no surprise to me. McCain's strongest "asset" will be his perception as being tough on terrorism and national security. Black's statement is just a verbal slip-up of a Republican general election strategy, 'be afraid of Obama because another 9/11 is coming'. The fear card is McCain's strongest weapon yet the lack of fear is McCain's archilles heel. How ironic for a "brave and honorable" soldier like McCain to use fear?

In this "black is white, draftdodger is patriot, divider is uniter" era, Mr. Black's comment, while true, just shows how outdated and disconnected his party is. To claim to uphold the Constitution and protect Americans and then to think out loud of using an attack to hang on to power show the immorality of this selfish group of thieves.

No, even with another release of newest hits by Bin Laden, even with another attack, Americans are sufficently reminded by the snapshots of Katrina and now the snapshots of Kansas, Missouri and Indiana to know not to pull the lever for these modern day stooges. These folks are no more patriots than Joe McCarthy once was. It's all about them, and Americans are much better than these pseudo-leaders.

As a Christian Conservative I want the Post to answer questions about McCain's character.
Why did he remarry ONE MONTH after divorcing his first wife, who was handicapped?
While having many affairs during his first marriage why didn't the military charge him for having affairs with subordinates?
What was the real reason he left the military?
Were there any complaints against him for sexual harrassment? or worse? Will, as is rumored, some of these women step forward soon to tell what happened?
Why did he call his second wife a "cun*" and a whor*? Why doesn't the Post report on this? Because guys like Broder and Cohen don't care about women being treated like dogs?
What role does McCain's affairs with lobbyists and other Washington-based women play on his thinking toward women?
Answer some questions and stop the constant stenography.

It's a tactic called FUD (Fear, uncertainty, and Doubt). The CIA and the British SIS use it when trying to manipulate foreign countries. [Iran in 53, 87, 98, etc]. Now the republicans have coined it as their signature for elections, and being people still fall for it isn't surprising, considering we are the only country that needs a warning label on a cup of coffee.

When was the last time the terror threat level was raised? Yup, in the 04 election cycle, and don't be surprised if there isn't another threat level raised right before November. (He who forgets history ...)

Obama has Neville Chamberlain's attitude and the outcome for America will be painful...like many learning experiences. Get this election going fast...we might win in Iraq before Obama can surrender......

I fail to see how this helps the GOP or McCain. How many times can Bush and his twin be asleep at the wheel before people wake up? And wasn't this the same playbook they used in 2006? How did that work out for them?

FEAR the ONLY card the Republicans can play and it can backfire on them.
Of course, God forbid another attack--it can certainly work against McCain because it is a reminder to voters that if we kept our eye on the ball intent on punishing those responsible for 9/11, Bin Laden would not be making recordings and free to spread his terror further.

McCain lied when he said that Black's statement about a terrorist attack was untrue. An attack would help McCain because the Republicans count on fear to make their case. To them, the only thing they have to fear is the lack of fear.

McCain's laser-like focus on terrorism and national security in the early days of the general election.
Huh? Are you a pr shill for McCain?
Yeah, real laser-like. Gee, there has been the green moment, the let's go to Houston and kiss big oil's arse moment so they fund Floyd's slime machine; the Canada trip to praise NAFTA and collect illegal donations from foreigners; the speech on telling Iowa and other mid-west farmers to go to hell because McCain will not support farm help or eth. supports; the I'm pro-woman bs (while the Post Dean and the Post AIPAC Dean ignore McCain sleazy treatment of women and call him a hero)... yeah, real laser-like there. Keep up the shill work.

It's debatable whether the greatest threat to our country is Islamic terrorism. When I saw that McCain said that, I figured he was just toeing the Republican line by elevating terrorism above all other issues.

Then I saw that the question was about the greatest ECONOMIC threat. And that makes McCain's answer ludicrous. Clearly he's not capable of talking about the economy on even the shallowest level. Anyone who's thought about the economy at all has an answer to that question: Peak oil, health care, outsourcing, etc. But McCain doesn't think about the economy, only about terrorism. He's got no chance in November.

I think Black just said out loud what everyone who follows politics think. The only Republican strength in the minds of the electorate is their anti-terror position. The craziest statement Chris quotes is McCain saying that radical Islam threatens our very existence. That is patently absurd. The USSR threatened our existence. Radical Islam can launch devastating terrorist attacks but in no way, shape or form can it threaten our existence.

Why would anyone who pays attention be in the least surprised that a manager for a dull-thinking NeoCon like McCain would look at mayhem and death as a political advantage or liability?

Everything those thugs do is a political calculation, including (and most significantly) that god-forsaken invasion of Iraq. They knew that uninformed Americans would go along with Iraq, because like themselves they didn't even know the difference between a Shi'ite and a Sunni. I strongly suspect McCain doesn't know the difference even now.

All those wonderful folks had to do was let the public know that the whole lot of them were evil-doers.

Isn't it about time the American people get tired of Terror intimidation constantly cast by the Republicans. Bush, Chaney and Rove have used it for eight years and heavily during the previous campaigns. Now we get it from the McCain campaign, you know the guy that states he isn't like bush.

I'm more concerned about a 72 year old guy that has a closed mind concerned with military force ideals than I am terrorist attacks. While the threat of Terrorism will always be with us whoever is in office, we can control much of it. There is no control of a President that plays his own game ignoring the majority of America's citizens. We have seen that for the last eight years. When you think bush, the first word that comes to my mind is McCain. We need a president that isn't inclined to shoot first (and in the wrong direction) and look second. We've had that.

You whiney liberals need to get a life. What Black said is true and you know it. Matter of fact, your queen Hillary said the same thing when campaigning in the northeast a few months ago, but no one went into shock. Your reactions say it all, you know it's true.

I think the comment by some advisor is a minor flap in the grand scheme of things, but this is a huge disadvantage for the McCain campaign because it turns the attention away from Obama's recent move away from public funding and back on to security. And the thing that goes along with security is Iraq.

McCain's people wanted to get at least two or three weeks of the funding talk but now it is one week and done.
BTW, this means McCain will drop out of public financing in about 3 weeks from now.

They know that precisely because Obama's greatest strength is in the fact that he offers something new, a change from long-held traditions of the past--that it is also his greatest weakness

They know that the fervent bubbly enthusiasm is a concern--deeply buried ambiguities about race, deeply held racism, especially among older voters

For a time, they were caught by the dilemma that Obama seemed invulnerable--that any attack, particularly the attacks that they have honed and used for so long, steeped in insinuation and vicious invention, would be regarded as racist.

Hence, the dilemma for the usual swift boat strategy.

Now they have found it. They have realized that:

1) Americans want to be free of the burdens and division of racism

2) Many of them--including many of those who wish to be free--are not

3) Republicans cannot raise racist issues frontally, because many people hold such views at the same time that they do not wish to see themselves as holding them

4) They need a substitute--distanced enough from overt racism to be acceptable to those who wish to see themselves as egalitarian but still hold deeply seated racial prejudices, and fears, yet close enough to evoke those very doubts and fears--yet one that they can claim is *not* racist--with the traditional smug pose of Republican innocence, hands up, pleased at their cleverness at providing one message while claiming another, the tradition of attack over thought and truth that carried us all the way to Iraq--and beyond.

The substitute is arrogance.

As the 527's gear up, look to see "arrogance" and "elitist" used again and again as this cycle's dark touchstone to evoke the deepest and unspoken doubts and fears, as they work in the mental demilitarized grey zone between racism and rationalization, calling up the vitriol with that classic combination of the pose of "clean hands" inevitably broken though by the barely contained, smug, blunt, adolescent glee of insinuated attack.

Elitist. He who grew up with a single mother. Who earned his academic progress through scholarships. Who turned down top law firms for the streets of Chicago and no pay.

No matter--the term itself will be enough to unleash the self-satisfied vitriolic scrawl--just enough of a peg to hang itself on to loose the traditional and safest prejudices, as always, so boldly feeling their unloosed anger as they ironically turn to the most familiar and comfortable shibboleths.

"Arrogance" equals acceptable racism here. One that can always be disclaimed. In other words, hiding truth behind a known facade, in the most common and seemingly pleasurable Republican tactic--fear inducing insinuation behind a known facade--and pleasure and pride in the manufacture of the known guise.

Wise up. Don't buy it. Turn such insinuated doubts away. If they need to manipulate you to stimulate your belief, question their motives.

If you didn't do it for Iraq--if you fell for the directed manipulation of fear, of the use of innuendo to stir undemonstrated and unrelated fears--you now have a second chance.

gee, why is it we're not seeing black's comments (and do you know him so well you call him "charlie") in a 24-7 loop on the cable shoutfests?
why honey, it's because they're mccain's base.
and i see the post has joined the crowd.

and watching the yammering yakkers on msnbc last nite confirmed it. hell, even the wapo's own jonathan capehart provided the mccain-friendly spin to soften and distract from the rancid intent of black's comments. kkkarl's dancin' dolly dave gregory devoted his opening segment to the spin that the essence of the comment is the big, stwong, daddy republican will keep us safe from the scary brown others; and the p_ssy democrats won't.

Hello Osama, hey it's me your ole buddy w, hey listen, you think y'all could get hold of another of them thar aeroplanes and maybe fly it into sometin here in amerika sometime round October 20th? My butt-buddy john could really use ur help. Thanks a bunch, oh ya, Laura sends her love, she still rides me cause yer a better lay than me....

I hope Black knows that he is responsible for Cindy taking a handful of pills and crawling under the bed. Not because of the terrorist mind you, because she is going to have to keep that frozen smile for another 6 months.

The "Who do you trust" advantage should go to McCain. He seems to have his finger on the one issue that encompasses vitually everything, and that is ENERGY. The oil dollars that OPEC is raking in is certainly funding the fundamentalist Muslim terrorist movement. Oil prices are crippling the economy and increasing unemployment.

McCain seems to be the only candidate with a realistic muli-faceted approach to dealing with the energy crisis. He is astute enough to keep all options open and give the private sector the financial incentives to jump on the technical solutions. The military approach of attacking the enemy (oil) from all sides is a winning approach. McCCain is smart enough to realize we will still need an adequate amount of domestic oil supply until non-oil energy sources are developed. His willingness to end the offshore drilling ban is reasonable and necessary to end our use of foriegn oil.

It is going to take at least 15 to 20 years to fully develop coal gasification, build nuclear energy plants, develop better battery technology, etc. In the meantime we will need new oil to keep the country's engine running.

If asked who I trust, I would have to say McCain. Obama has presented nothing in the way of practical solutions to anything. He just sits around with his advisors and sings "Cumbuya" (I know I spelled that one wrong) to his audience. A warm fuzzy feeling doesn't put food on the table or keep my family safe.

Wow, just reading over the comments on Chris's last entry, I see that Lyndon LaRouche supporters are now posting. That might spell the end of the comments section. LaRouchies are truly the most incomprehensible and insane folks walking the earth today. I think their basic philosophy has something to to with the Queen of England being the world's biggest drug dealer, and that all political conspiracies emanate from that simple fact.

Now, back to the realm where quasi-sane people live:

Charlie Black's silly comment basically highlights the lack of a rationale for John McCain's campaign. He won the Republican nomination because he was, in essence, "none of the above."

Therefore, the only hope the Republicans have of holding on to the White House is to continue the various and vicious "whispering campaigns" against Obama: He's a Muslim, He hates Israel, His wife hates white people, etc. etc. etc.

It reminds me of a reverse 1980: Carter's only hope was to portray Reagan as dangerously naive and too simplistic to deal with the complexities of the world stage.

'Asked whether McCain or Obama would do a "good job" handling terrorism, 70 percent said McCain, while 49 percent said Obama.'

Considering that the de facto chief of the McCain campaign just said a terrorist attack on the US would be a big help to McCain, I can only say this poll provides further evidence that Americans are irredeemably stupid on such matters.

Congrats to the Post, by the way, on your successful effort to bury the Charlie Black story.

I'm sure Americans don't need to know that the McCain campaign would like to see terrorists killing them.